Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 05 September 2013 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F07B11E80DF for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mkeywl+0gYcO for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5411921E80BC for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id c10so1823466wiw.2 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 06:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=ifZXqmOlcInnpLylr+691NmhKZHgdeSufrjn1+v7aGQ=; b=WsaNLmkc225gv9pe7+s65zb7w6YeeVklCIoks2bzL4wAKG+nDFz+EmhM2m7fw8sPqn h+XCmqRSfCYNjiXJnVQhgf1+n6Im13gHRg5+y4mlIPFstmzdS+DidTl/uRLqe+BFP8O/ 8LAODLVuGcHU5Fo4eD6pLeZItFV8kJV5PpZBVQdxkktOSY80/M6VwyeenAmWPyengJW0 3Dw64SV8/HQFZlFFBv5CRVzQMM6xiAP+w3mYxyeIJQyLWx4KE87q7yRY0gakjdesREDW XOdckBYNkAqgD3bEfGyctpy8VAea4XghI9SkXg5MOG7kBaWD6x9ANMew5+J5g1cHnSyg FN7g==
X-Received: by 10.194.93.135 with SMTP id cu7mr267250wjb.73.1378386854861; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 06:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-181-232-77.red.bezeqint.net. [79.181.232.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fv10sm11455824wic.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Sep 2013 06:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Colin Perkins'" <csp@csperkins.org>, "'Qin Wu'" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
References: <20130830162909.20422.68365.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <008201cea59e$aa9fd3a0$ffdf7ae0$@gmail.com> <5EAB5396-57ED-4B29-9FEF-0CAF92F27052@csperkins.org> <015a01cea7d3$62c3cbe0$284b63a0$@gmail.com> <5C7CBAD2-4340-4A7B-8D55-8E56AB2DE07E@csperkins.org> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43BDAD25@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <6F86C630-BA74-4A3D-B895-A54739BA2F0F@csperkins.org> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43BDB385@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <24A97B40-63D8-4D98-B89C-1DB1960016B9@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <24A97B40-63D8-4D98-B89C-1DB1960016B9@csperkins.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:11:34 +0300
Message-ID: <041701ceaa39$743ac730$5cb05590$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJijinmfWhztVhxPxTz4Z/AzXtx5QIuWAw/AlLADJMB5bKXwgHzIspcAr3OJToB4DkqaAKzMCHVAlofHGSX/yv/YA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:14:30 -0000

Colin,
One other reason and it would be added is to say that when selecting which
pt numbers to use always assume that multiplexing of RTP/RTCP  is used.
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]
> Sent: 05 September, 2013 3:28 PM
> To: Qin Wu
> Cc: Roni Even; avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-
> dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt
> 
> Qin,
> 
> On 5 Sep 2013, at 03:42, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Hi,Colin:
> > For motivation, May I point you to look at the following discussion on
> MMUSIC mailing list:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload/current/msg00542.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11062.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11107.html
> >
> > I don't know it is sufficient to just send some proposed IANA changes to
> IANA.
> > Usually based on my understanding, a document is needed to let IANA to
> take action.
> 
> If your goal is simply to correct the registry to match RFC 5761, then I
don't
> believe you need a new document. Just email the IANA, and ask them to
> make the correction to match RFC 5761.
> 
> > For your comments, I do think we give a new policy for new payload
format
> coming up, please see my reply below.
> ...
> > [Qin]: I disagree. just like two policies given in section 4 of RFC5761,
one
> new policy we want to give in this draft is since the registry for RTP
Payload
> types (PT) for standard audio and video
> > encodings  is closed, new payload format *MUST*   use dynamic payload
> type number assignment and Each new payload format is named by a
> registered media subtype.
> >
> > However RFC3551 section 3.1 only said,to register additional encoding,
you
> may either assign each encoding a short name, in some context, you refer
to
> these encodings in the form of a MIME content-type, or assigns static RTP
> payload type numbers, or assign with dynamic payload type number.
> 
> I don't understand your message, but I do not believe there is a conflict
> between RFC 3551 and 5761.
> 
> > [Qin]: I see. However one thing I don't understand, RFC5761only
> > proposes Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port, Why
> two policies defined in RFC5761 can affect RFC3551 and proposed payload
> type usage can be used to update RFC3551.
> 
> Because the payload type in RTP and RTCP packet occupies the same byte,
> but is 7 bits in RTP and 8 bits in RTCP. When multiplexing RTP and RTCP
> packets on the same port it is necessary to specify how to distinguish.
That is
> the reason why RFC 5761 updates RFC 3551.
> 
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
>